The Little-Known Benefits Of Pragmatic > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 사이트 ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 슬롯 추천; www.viewtool.com, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and 프라그마틱 추천 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and 프라그마틱 추천 to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.